This outcome was reached
by SRA decision.
Mr Varghese is subject to Regulation 3.1(b) and 3.1(g) of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011, as a result of an Adjudicator considering the explanation that had been sought of Mr Varghese and his former partner in respect of their conduct not being sufficient or satisfactory. Furthermore, his practising certificate for 2010/2011 was granted subject to conditions.
Accordingly, the Authorised Officer is required to consider whether to impose any practising certificate condition in accordance with Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 which sets out the purposes for which conditions may, in the public interest, be imposed on a solicitor's practising certificate.
The Authorised Officer carefully considered Mr Varghese's regulatory history with the SRA. An Adjudicator considered the explanation provided by Mr Varghese in respect of his conduct to be insufficient and unsatisfactory, whereby he became subject to Regulation 3.1(b) of the SRA Practising Regulations 2009. Further as a result of an outstanding regulatory matter, Mr Varghese's practising certificate for 2010/2011 was granted subject to conditions.
The Authorised Officer also had consideration to the regulatory objectives set out in Section 1 and Section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007 along with the tests set out in the matters of A Odunlami [2008] EWCA Civ 1598 and F Razeen [2008] EWCA Civ 1220.
However, the Authorised Officer was satisfied that it would not be necessary, reasonable or proportionate in the interests of protection of the public to impose any practising certificate condition at this time. The Authorised Officer is also satisfied that none of the purposes specified in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition. Accordingly the Authorised Officer authorises the issue of an unconditional practising certificate.